alanbikehouston

Sometimes, the "statistics" concerning various approaches to health can lead to a lot of confusion. When studies were done of the Pritikin diet (which is, perhaps, an "uncle" of the Ornish diet) people noticed an odd "fact": although the percentage of people on the Pritikin diet who died of heart problems and strokes was reduced, the percentage of people on the diet who died of cancer went UP.

That led critics to claim that the "Pritikin diet caused cancer". But, there was a flaw in how people were looking at the data. Most people who die of "natural causes" die of either heart problems OR cancer. So, if we could totally eliminate all heart problems, EVERYONE would die of cancer.

I kinda/sorta follow the Ornish program. I'm not going to stop enjoying Texas cuisine, but I eat less of it. Tonight I had two (just TWO) smoked ribs with my salad. There is nothing harder than eating just two ribs...my nephew keep asking "Want another rib...want another rib?" He won't be in my will.

mtnroads

I just want to thank Christy for taking the time to present her thoughts about Ornish and other dietary factors (which I pretty much agree with), and defend herself so well without resorting to attacks.

At this point I am just trying to get the fat down and the fruits and vegetables up, as well as get on the bike everyday. Meat is no longer a daily occurence for me but I am far from vegetarian. My biggest problem comes with moderation - on days like today when I get caught out in the rain for two hours, I come home cold and HUNGRY. I eat way too many unhealthy (fat) carbs when this happens - aargh. Well, at least I rode.

colnago kid

cb hungry/Christy

You write: "First of all , I am not attacking you. I am actually learning and enjoying this alot. I'm just sorry you feel so."

It's truly great to see you have now adopted a more pleasing and diplomatic demeanor, but please drop the revisionism--let's not forget that you did indeed cast aspersions on my integrity by inferring that I deliberately ignored "great" studies (which were suddenly not so great to you any more after I pointed out how they did not support your claims). Also, your facetious dismissal of my commentary on Ornish's Multicenter trial further underscores the less-than-benevolent intent behind your original post.

"I felt it (ad hominem attack) was directed against Ornish, not me. I probably should have clarified, Ornish is obviously a pungent character for you."

Anyone who makes ridiculous claims about diet and health is a pungent character for me.

"My impartiallity actual blinded you. I do not hold cherished long held beliefs about low fat diet. You have jumped to conclusions."

I have not jumped to conclusions--I don't know you from a bar of soap. I was stating that when you criticize someone, make sure you are doing it for the right reasons--not from reactive defensiveness--and make sure you have your facts right. I cannot presume to know why you felt the need to make such flimsy criticisms of my articles, but I can certainly confirm you did not even begin to get your facts right.

"With that said, will the short term benefits of the LYON study (only studied 2.5 years I believe) also pan out and show an adverse effect over 12 to 15 years from now?"

I'm not quite sure why an omega-3 and antioxidant-enriched diet would dramatically lower mortality over 2.25 years, but increase mortality after 12 to 15 years if the participants stick to their assigned diets…such speculation defies logic. See Dr. Ram Singh's ten year trial of a fruit, nut and veggie-enhanced diet, which produced significant declines in mortality.

"…you saw that the Ornish program did not provide any mortality benefit over aggressive cardiac intervention but I saw that it meant surgeries and angioplasties may not always be the best option and lifestyle and dietary changes can do just as well.."

Actually, I believe exercise and diet can do a whole lot better than surgeries and angioplasties, but I firmly believe that Ornish's format is hardly the ideal way to go. As I mentioned in my original reply to your claims, very low-fat intakes--such as those recommended by Ornish--decrease the absorption of very important fat-soluble vitamins and antioxidants. This may at least partially explain why Ornish's trials have not even come close to emulating the dramatic mortality reductions seen in the Lyon and Dart trials and in the studies by Dr Ram Singh and co-workers.

Ornish's intervention trials also failed to make use of added omega-3 fats. Given that most people on western diets exhibit pitiful omega-3 status--with studies repeatedly showing vegetarians to exhibit the poorest omega-3 status of all--again, it is not a huge surprise that his studies have failed to come anywhere near producing the sizable mortality reductions seen in the successful trials mentioned above (I note that Ornish now recommends fish oil to his patients--am I the only one who thinks it is a tad hypocritical to virulently dump on animal flesh but to then recommend the consumption of fish oils, which requires the killing of a living creature, something which supposedly runs counter to the vegetarian belief system?)

I will reiterate again--vegetarian diets are hardly necessary to produce improvements like those seen in the Lifestyle trial. A comparison of exercise and PCI-stenting found a far lower rate of subsequent coronary episodes in the exercise group. See here for a write-up on this trial:

https://www.theomnivore.com/PCI%20vs%20exercise.html

Ornish and coworkers are not the only ones to have examined the effect of diet and/or exercise on atherosclerosis progression. Angiographic improvements were also noted in the treatment group of another small trial, the STARS study. In STARS, the treatment diet was an OMNIVOROUS regimen which included:

- decreased intake of vegetable oils, saturated fats and trans fat-rich margarines
- increased fruits and vegetables
- increased consumption of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids
- more starchy complex carbohydrate foods like bread, pasta and potatoes.
- reduced consumption of processed foods--including such refined carbohydrate-rich junk as cookies, pastry, cakes.

Generally sound advice, except for recommendations to increase consumption of grain and potato foods, decrease saturated fat intake and increase omega-6 intake. Grains are nutritional weaklings and the only trial (DART) to have tested them in isolation found a small increase in CHD mortality). Westerners generally eat far too much omega-6 already, in the form of linoleic acid, which unfavorably influences eicosanoid metabolism in a manner that promotes clotting, vasoconstriction, and inflammation--all big no-nos if you want to avoid CVD. As for saturated fats, where do I start--there's a wealth of evidence showing that the campaign against saturated fats is a load of scientifically untenable nonsense. Here's a quick primer:

https://www.theomnivore.com/sat-fat-chol-CHD.html

Anyway, despite its flaws, coronary angiographies revealed that ten of the omnivorous STARS intervention diet group subjects experienced widening of their arteries, compared to only one in the control group. After 3 years and 3 months, three controls died, compared to only one diet group subject.

Something else worth mentioning in relation to the Multicenter project: percutaneous interventions not only fail to improve mortality, but the data shows a trend towards increased mortality with this intervention:

https://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/conte...resourcetype=1

Taking this into consideration, the Multicenter results become even more uninspiring…

Again, I will reiterate the point of my original Ornish article--the health claims he makes for vegetarianism, the outlandish claims made for his interventions, and his absurd claims against meat/protein are SCIENTIFICALLY UNFOUNDED.

Anthony Colpo
www.theomnivore.com
www.statinalert.org

cbhungry

Can you refer me to a link to the Star's trial? The only ones I pull up on medline deal with compariing different thrombolytics in angioplasty. I realize many studies may share the same acronyms.

And yes physicians are rethinking and now carefully selecting patients who will benefit the most from angioplasty or CABGs since there is more data regarding aggressive medical /dietary/excercise managment and its utility and benefits. I am seeing more cardiologist declining CABGs and or stent placement in populations that routinely got them ten years ago. (There is a good program at Emory that solicits patients who have chosen or been recommended by their physicians to undergoe such intensive lifestyle changes.) I believe they work with the Ornish data but have been incorporating the omega 3 fatty acids due to all the studies in the cardiac literature that show its tremendous benefits. That's where I'm with you 100%.

There is one cardiologist in particular, Dr. Enrique Flores (he jumps between covington and atlanta at Emory Unieverstiy) who will not see a patient unless they have had a comprehensive evaluation with a nutritionist and show serious efforts at excercising (either in cardiac rehab or self reported diaries.)


Again, I am only commenting on his clinical trials and agree that his anti meat/protein bias is shameful, but it does not take away from what was the first real rigorous attempt at looking at this issue using the clinical methodology he did when previous data up until then had mostly been epidimiological. For that he should be creditted. I look at Ornish in the same way I look at Atkins. Ornish provided landmark data about lifestyle intervention and Atkins spearheaded the movement back towards looking at meats etc. with a more favorable eye. (Although unfortunately their institute hasn't sponsored alot of long term triasl)

colnago kid

cbhungry/Christy

here's the STARS citation:

Watts GF, et al. Effects on coronary artery disease of lipid-lowering diet, or diet plus cholestyramine, in the St Thomas' atherosclerosis regression study (STARS). Lancet, 1992; 339: 563-569.

Anthony Colpo
www.theomnivore.com
www.statinalert.org

cbhungry

Thankyou, I found the abstract on MCG's (Medical college of Georigia's) Medline and will be ordering the full article, but from what I got from the abstract they added a significant amount of plant fiber to the diet (up to 6 grams per 1000 calories); decreased calories consumed to 100 to 120 mg per day for many of the participants; and increased polyunsaturated fat in the diet, and ensured omega three fatty acids. The dietary group also had a 27% total-fat, 8% saturated-fat diet that was high in pectin-rich fruit. Unfortantely the abstract did not mention the meat intake so I will await the full article.

All of these changes seem to make the diet closer to a vegetarian diet than the NCEP diet? No?

Their breakdown was not complete in the abstract so I'll get to details and look into it further. I appreciate the referance.

christy

AlannRI

What I found most interesting was that in the Ornish Study the treatment group started with a mean weight of almost 25lbs heavier than the control group.

Journeyman

My last blood test shows that my cholesterol is 230 which is moderately high. I am 44 and would like to make some meaningful changes for my health. Since its beginning to warm up where I live in Kansas, I'll be riding more so that takes care of the exercise. But, from a dietary standpoint, can anyone here recommend in laymans terms the course I should follow to change my diet? If you know of a good article related to this change, please send it my way or post it. Thanks.


jman

Guest

What I did to change my diet is just start being more active at the grocery store. Look for foods that are low in saturated fats and have more fiber. If you look at the nutrition label, avoid foods that start with "enriched", or contain "high fructose corn syrup" and "hydrogenated..." and "vegetable shortening" and "vegetable oils". Increase your vegetable and fruit intake, and drink a lot of water. Start by increasing to 40 oz of water per day, and try to get to the point where you're drinking 100 oz per day (more when you start increasing your cycling in the warmer months).

That would be a good start.

Koffee

miamijim

Journeyman, I was having a conversation at work and someone suggested this. Open your fridge and look for 5 items you eat regularly. Switch over to a healthier version of each of these and exercise. As simple as it sounds it may work.

Bontrager

wouldn't that be neovascularization or should i quit trying to rember my embryology?

531Aussie

hee hee hee hee, Ornish on McDonald's payroll

https://www.theomnivore.com/July_7_2005_Newsletter.html

kf5nd

Let's not quibble about diets here. The major factor is that Paul W. acknowledges a history of poor diet, poor fitness, he's 46, he's male, he's only been exercising for a year... I think he should get a complete work-up by a cardiologist, just for baseline purposes, even if he currently has no symptoms.

phidauex

Anyone have any info on studies measuring the effectiveness of cholesterol combating drugs and diets that have been rigorously controlled for gene expression?

For instance, I'm aware of the fact that, for a certain portion (I can't remember the %) of the populace, lipitor doesn't function, because that portion has a different expression of a critical gene, which prevents lipitor from functioning. Literally millions and millions of dollars, and thousands of hours of time are wasted every year trying lipitor on people who it doesn't work for. Studies checking its effectiveness have largely ignored the genomics issue, which considering the part it plays, would be akin to 'forgetting' to control for age or gender.

Likewise, all the studies showing that small quantities of alcohol such as beer and wine can be good for your heart health are now under question, because they didn't control for the alcohol dehydrogenase enzyme gene that has three expressions. In one expression, alcohol vastly decreases incidence of heart disease, in one expression it moderately decreases the incidence, and in another expression, it slightly increases the incidence of heart disease.

How can anyone use the results of the original study to make an informed health decision, when making the choice to consume alcohol, you are basically rolling the dice, since you don't know if it will help or hurt you. The overall statistical analysis is meaningless, because it doesn't control for a critical variable.

So anyway, not to just push genomics like crazy, I'm curious if anyone can give me some info on cholestrol related studies that control for genomics, since the cholestrol issue is tied so closely to gene expression. I have a very strong suspicion that a method that works well for one expression might work very poorly for another, and vice versa. If genomics aren't a part of the equation, its hard to tell which is the correct path for an individual. Of course, there is still the question of how and when individuals should be able to test their own genomics, and who will see that information, but the usefulness of that question hinges on studies that incorporate that variable.

peace,
sam

Pat

Good reply Koffee. Of course, you always seem to write good replies.

I have read some studies indicating that reversing damage to the circulatory system can be reduced, but I do not know if that has been conclusively demonstrated.

It seems that the major consensus is that by keeping you LDL/HDL ratio low, you greatly limit the buildup of fatty deposits in your arteries.

Now most people can keep the LDL/HDL ratio low with diet or, in refractory cases, diet and exercise.

I have a friend who is an ardent cyclist and he had a low LDL/HDL ratio but he still nearly got killed by buildup in his coronary arteries. Apparantly, he had a genetic predisposition to it. The cardiologist told him that his cycling which built up his circulatory system probably saved his life. He had just enough excess capacity to survive. He had a triple bypass and made what was to me a pretty amazing recovery.

In my case, my father died of a massive heart attack at the age of 64. My cholesterol tends to run high even on a pretty careful diet with plenty of exercise so I suspect that I have a bit of a genetic predispositon to high cholesterol (my father's cholesterol was off the charts, as I recall but his diet stank). A few years ago, my physician wanted to prescribe cholestrol reducers but I wanted to give a pretty strict diet a chance first. So I pretty much eliminated saturated and transfats from my diet. I live on fish and boneless skinless chicken breasts, fruits, vegetables and carbohydrates and avoid processed foods. That did it for me. It got my LDL down low and my HDL seemed to rise too.

jennings780

There have been more studies than the Ornish study.
This is an interesting link by Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn of Cleveland Clinic and his trials:

https://www.heartattackproof.com/resolving_cade.htm

The article by Dr. Esselstyn is VERY INTERESTING. I highly recommend that you read it if you are at all interested in this topic.

I asked my Dr. about the Ornish study and he said there is fast becoming a mountain of research showing that adopting a totally plant based/whole foods diet can reverse heart disease. Of course, he also said that he had a problem getting his patients to take Lipitor.

531Aussie

This article from the European Heart Journal (1997) 18, 18-22 (no less) is VERY INTERESTING. I highly recommend that you read it if you are at all interested in this topic.

https://www.omen.com/corr.html

jennings780

That is an interesting article. Thanks for sharing it.
Note that it is looking at the typical "low fat" diet that was all the rage in the '90s. That is how I tried to eat in the 90s as well. Let me assure you that eating an exclusively plant based/whole foods diet is markedly different that the low fat diets referred to in the article you quoted. The low fat diets recommended by the American Heart Association and most cardiologists are way to moderate to be effective. Studies of disease rates and life expectancies of vegans show great reductions in disease and increased life expectancies.

531Aussie

The point that is almost always ignored, or just not known, is that heart disease is multi-factorial (overall diet, exercise, weight loss), which is why the Ornish and Esselstyn work shows positive results, but these other factors are often underemphasized. Most people think: "oh, cut down on fat -- that's it". But this ain't the way....

https://www.powerhealth.net/selected_articles.htm
"MYTH #6: Saturated fats and dietary cholesterol cause heart disease, atherosclerosis, and/or cancer, and low-fat, low-cholesterol diets are healthier for people

This, too, is not a specific vegetarian myth. Nevertheless, people are often urged to take up a vegetarian or vegan diet because it is believed that such diets offer protection against heart disease and cancer since they are lower or lacking in animal foods and fats.

Although it is commonly believed that saturated fats and dietary cholesterol "clog arteries" and cause heart disease, such ideas have been shown to be false by such scientists as Linus Pauling, Russell Smith, George Mann, John Yudkin, Abram Hoffer, Mary Enig, Uffe Ravnskov and other prominent researchers (50).


Not referenced, but a simple, concise explanation of arterial inflammation:
https://www.mercola.com/2005/may/28/c...erol_heart.htm


Not necessarily. Ok, these articles discuss vegetarians, if you wanna nitpick

https://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abst...urnalcode=ajcn
https://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full...urnalcode=ajcn

https://www.powerhealth.net/selected_articles.htm
"MYTH #7: Vegetarians live longer and have more energy and endurance than meat-eaters.


anyway, if you want the "real dirt", Anthony Colpo contributes on page 1 of this thread as the Colnago Kid

jennings780

Great point. I discussed this exact same point with a friend that recently decided to eat vegan. He pointed out the 7th day aventist studies. I noted that there are a lot of other factors other than how the 7th Day Adventists eat that contribute to their lower mortality, including exercise, lack of alcohol, smoking, drug use, etc. People who choose to become vegetarians or vegans are more likely to be doing other things to improve their health. Likewise, in medical studies done by Dr. Ornish and Dr. Esselstyn the people who actually have the discipline to follow the plant-based diets are also the ones who will add exercise to their lives, stop smoking and partaking in other unhealthy behaviors.

One thing that is true is that there is a paucity of studies on vegans. It is such a small percentage of the population. Also, I know many vegetarians that eat a lot of fries, chips, processed foods, etc. It would be interesting to see a study of whole food vegans. However, as you have pointed out, these obessive people probably don't smoke or drink much and probably exercise all the time (sounds like me). It is interesting that a few threads on this board have gone into the vegan way of life and there have been a lot of members of this board who are vegetarians or vegans - a lot more so than are represented in the typical sample of people. Does this suggest that people who exercise a lot and take care of their bodies more likely to be vegetarian? Or vegetarians are more likely to exercise a lot? Or neither?

531Aussie

good point. There are probably studies out there about this, too



Too bloody true, and really makes me laugh, especially regarding those that do it for "health" reasons!!

msparks

I read a quick article in one of the latest bicyling mags. It was only about 2 paragraphs long but they basically said the "polymeal diet" could add 6-10 years of life even if you start it after the age of 50.

You can google polymeal diet. Here is a good article that I found: https://www.newstarget.com/003176.html

I truly believe that some of those products will add to your health. Especially the antioxidants, and fish and garlic.

I would like to start eating more of those products.

phidauex

I saw this a lot in California, where it was pretty 'trendy' to be vegetarian, so a lot of people did it without really having their hearts in it. The junk food veggies, as I called them, typically didn't know what to eat, so they ate junk food. If you grow up eating what your parents cook, then go to college and decide to be vegetarian, what will you eat? You aren't used to cooking, and even if you were, the only thing you'd remember was the hamburger helper you remember helping mom with, and that won't do you any good. So whats left? Fries and chips!

Whenever I hear about a friend or aquaintance trying out vegetarian or vegan diets, the first thing I do is give them some recipies (most pretty easy), and invite them over so they can cook with me to get a few meals under their belt. Its really easy to be a healthy vegetarian, I don't even think about it anymore, but with no experience, its hard to tell how to start off. I also help people 'convert' favorite recipes to vegetarian or vegan, so they can adapt easier. My biggest accomplishment so far has been a really rocking french onion soup recipe converted to vegetarian. Even my meat-eater friends prefer it to regular french onion soup (which relies heavily on beef consumme for flavor and texture).

Anyway, its a common problem, but is easy to fix.

I've pondered a lot about the vegetarian health issue, and whether its vegetarianism that makes people healthy, or whether its healthiness that stimulates vegetarianism, or whether there is an independent causal factor causing them both. I'd like to think its an independent causal factor, something about a desire to think 'long term' and a respect for the body and health. Health is more than a diet, and more than a training schedule, its a lot of little things all put together.

There are so many confounding variables, and so much time involved, that it is very hard to study the effects of a vegetarian diet on overall health. You couldn't reasonably fund a study where you ask a group of people to all make the exact same lifestyle choices, except one group eats vegetarian and the other doesn't, and keep it up for the length of time required to get good information.

However, I'm consoled by the fact that most of these studies and counter studies aren't aruging about whether vegetarianism helps you or hurts you, but rather how much it helps you, a lot or a little. Even if its just a tiny bit, its worth it for me, since I've got reasons beyond health.

peace,
sam

bg4533

phidauex,
Could you please post or PM me this recipe for french onion soup? Thanks.

phidauex

I'll get it typed up tonight (its still in 'pile of notes' form. ) and post it.

peace,
sam